ASLAM Vs. SAJID PARVEZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short, the "drc Act"), the petitioners have assailed an order dated 18th march 2008 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller (ARC) qua property bearing municipal no. 2922, Lal Darwaza, Sirki Walan, Delhi-6 and observing that earlier order passed would hold good qua other Lrs as well.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the landlord filed an eviction petition against 6 Lrs of deceased Abdul Hamid, who were all living in the tenanted premises. He did not make those Lrs of deceased tenants as a party who were not living in the premises. Only one of the lrs of the deceased tenant filed an application for leave to defend. However, this application for leave to defend was dismissed and an eviction order was passed qua the premises in question on 3rd January 2006. During the pendency of execution petition, one Naim filed objections against execution claiming that he was also one of the LRs and he was not made a party and, therefore, his tenancy did not stand terminated and the eviction decree cannot be executed. His objections were dismissed by the learned ARC on the ground that after death of original tenant, his legal heirs succeeded to the tenancy as joint tenants and notice of Court served on Lrs living in the premises was a notice to all of the lrs. The application for leave to defend filed by one of them would be considered as if leave to defend application as filed by all of them. Since the other legal heirs of Abdul Hamid had filed similar objections which were dismissed by the Court on 3rd January 2006, Mr. Naim who again took the same plea by filing objections to the execution, his objections were also liable to be dismissed.

(3.) THE landlord had also taken a plea that Mr. Naim was not living in the premises for last five years. The learned ARC considered this aspect also and found that Naim was not living in the premises. He placed on record just a photograph with his name plate which seemed to have been taken just to create proof. He placed certain documents of the year 1998 but had failed place documents showing that he was living in the premises in question when he filed objections.